determinants of student absenteeism/presenteeism in qatar

Frontiers of Contemporary Education ISSN 2690-3520 (Print) ISSN 2690-3539 (Online)

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce

17

Original Paper

Determinants of Student Absenteeism/Presenteeism in Qatar: A

Path Analysis

Abdel Latif Sellami1*

, Rima Charbaji El-Kassem1, Haneen B. K. Alqassass

1 & Ahmed Al-Emadi

2

1 Social and Economic Survey Research Institute (SESRI), Qatar University, Qatar

2 College of Education, Qatar University, Qatar

* Abdel Latif Sellami, E-mail: [email protected]

Received: April 30, 2020 Accepted: May 14, 2020 Online Published: June 2, 2020

doi:10.22158/fce.v1n1p17 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fce.v1n1p17

Abstract

The current study sought to investigate the perceptions of school teachers regarding student

absenteeism and presenteeism in the State of Qatar. Drawing on the existing relevant literature in the

field and based on a survey research method, the study was carried out during the first term (Fall

semester) in 2015. The study involved preparatory (middle) and secondary (high) school teachers at

both public (Independent) and private (International) schools in Qatar. To attain this goal, a causal

model was used to examine the causes that shape teachers’ perceptions of absenteeism and

presenteeism. The data required for the present research was collected from a sample of 495 teachers

at Independent and International schools. Based on factor analysis, the findings concluded from the

study indicated that seven valid dimensions were extracted. In addition, three determinant factors that

influence the perceptions of preparatory and secondary school teachers with regard to students’

absentee and presentee behaviours were identified. These factors are: (a) reviewing curriculum content,

(b) the teaching load, and (c) the expected rate of student graduations. The study concludes by offering

some important recommendations for education practitioners and policy makers as well as some useful

suggestions for future research and practice.

Keywords

Causal path analysis, teachers’ perceptions, student absenteeism, student presenteeism, Qatar

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce Frontiers of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020

18 Published by SCHOLINK INC.

1. Introduction

In today’s dynamic and highly competitive world, student engagement and motivation are key to

success. Many educational institutions are plagued with student idleness, non-attentiveness, unrest, and

indiscipline that undermine the quality of education. International research shows that with many

students turning into unmotivated and apathetic individuals, increased student absenteeism, lethargy,

and boredom are a concern for schools and families alikeas more and more students fail to perform

well at school. Other research, however, confirms that student disengagement leads to absenteeism

(Archambault, Janosz, Fallu, & Pagani, 2009).

Because attendance constitutes the first step toward students’ educational success, students, families,

school practitioners, and the larger community all need to gain a better understanding and more

appropriately address the challenges associated with absenteeism and presenteeism within schools in

our communities. No two would disagree that attendance is a key indicator of successful school results,

as well as productive life outcomes. Students who frequently miss school classes are at a much greater

risk of poor self-concept, poor school performance, retention, and dropping out (Picklo & Christenson,

2005).

Interest in the reasons that drive students to miss classes has prompted researchers to investigate their

motivation and commitment at school. Examining and understanding the factors influencing students’

desire to attend school and actively engage in their learning can be an arduous undertaking and a

daunting task but will certainly aid in shedding important light on student absenteeism/presenteeism.

2. Background

Realising major social and economic changes are required to transform their societies from reliance on

hydrocarbon resources to knowledge-based economies, the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries

(Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE) introduced a wave of long-term strategic

―national vision‖ initiatives often drafted by foreign firms and consultants (Al-Kuwārī, 2012). In Qatar,

for example, the Qatar National Vision 2030 (QNV), which the leaders articulated in 2008, rests on

four pillars: (a) human, (b) social, (c) economic, and (d) environmental development (Abduljawad,

2015).

Central to QNV 2030 is the need to modernise the country’s education system. To achieve this goal,

Qatar commissioned the RAND Corporation, to overhaul its entire education system from elementary

school to higher education (Powell, 2012; Rubin, 2012). The education reform, referred to as Education

for a New Era, was initiated in 2002 to decentralise education and introduce the principles of autonomy,

accountability, variety, and choice within the system (Al-Maadheed, 2017). This resulted in the

creation of independent schools, which replaced government schools, and the establishment of new

curriculum standards and teacher and leadership professional development (Nasser, 2017). A visible

consequence of these changes is increased pressure on teachers struggling to juggle many

responsibilities, especially managing heavy workloads.



At the heart of the education reform in Qatar is the call for enhancing student motivation and positive

engagement in class and other academic environments (Nasser, 2017; QGSDP, 2011). Low student

attendance rates and lack of student motivation were identified as real challenges in Qatar (Lee, 2016).

Both issues are persistent chronic problems characterising Qatar’s school system (Alfadala, 2015;

Badri & Khaili, 2014). There is therefore a pressing need to develop students’ positive attitudes

towards learning, and to deepen their appreciation of the importance of class attendance (Clump, Bauer,

& Whiteleather, 2003).

3. Absenteeism/Presenteeism Defined

Defined as the failure to show up for work as required (Johns, 2009), absenteeism entails missing ten

per cent or more of total days missed in a school year (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2012). Current research

indicates consensus amongst scholars that absenteeism is an area for concern (Hocking, 2008). With

reference to the school environment, there is ample evidence of work done on the reasons and

consequences of student absenteeism in particular, including studies proposing a myriad of factors that

distract students from school and hence non-attendance. Discussion of these causes and effects is

beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say here that personal (Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison,

2006), contextual (Hartnett, 2007) and health (Kearney & Bensaheb, 2006) influences are prime

reasons why students skip school. Student underperformance remains a major consequence of

absenteeism (Gottfried, 2010).

A concept related to absenteeism is presenteeism, a problem many researchers have investigated in

organisational behaviour and human resources management fields. Presenteeism is defined as the

condition of being physically present at work but not fully functional, productive or engaged, due to

health problems (Gerich, 2016). According to Johns (2009, p. 8), ―On a continuum, presenteeism

stands between full work engagement and absenteeism‖. In this study, presenteeism refers to the

behaviour or condition whereby students are physically present in class during scheduled class time but

do not operate to their full potential, thus resulting in loss of productivity.

4. Review of Literature

While research has documented absenteeism in academic settings (Arulampalam, Naylor, & Smith,

2012; Chen & Lin, 2008; Credé, Roch, & Kieszczynka, 2010; Schmulian & Coetzee, 2011), very little

is known about presenteeism in educational contexts (Macfarlane, 2012). Admittedly, research on this

subject is needed, especially regarding the factors that are likely to cause K–12 student presenteeism

behaviour and its effect in hindering academic performance (Law, 2007; Macfarlane, 2015; Schalge &

Soga, 2008).



4.1 Presenteeism in the School Context

Although the subject of presenteeism in the workplace is well-researched, only a handful of isolated

research efforts have investigated presenteeism in educational settings. Consequently, not enough

work has been done to study this phenomenon in academic contexts, especially at K-12 levels. Limited

as it is, the recent expansion of presenteeism from its widely acknowledged use in the workplace to the

realm of education has brought about a fresh perspective on this topic. Viewing student presenteeism

as a loss of academic performance due to illness, Ferritto (2016) measured the concept based on five

behavioural facets that normally support student academic achievement: (a) paying attention in class;

(b) class participation; (c) class attendance; (d) arriving on time for classes; and (e) note-taking.

Pioneering work explicitly addressing the problem of presenteeism and academic performance loss

among students—albeit very limited—has only recently begun to emerge (Ferritto, 2016; Ja uregui et

al., 2009; Macfarlane, 2012). Scanty as they are, these studies on student presenteeism have

concentrated exclusively on post-secondary (university) settings, including research undertaken in the

US (Hysenbegasi, Hass, & Rowland, 2005), Hong Kong (Macfarlane, 2015, 2016, 2017) and Japan

(Mikami et al., 2013). Although these studies provide insights into presenteeism in academic

environments, other aspects of presenteeism have received limited attention, including its impact on

learners’ achievement and measures required to curb the problem.

In a study involving university students in Japan, Matsushita et al. (2011) developed a Presenteeism

Scale to assess the existence of presenteeism among participants. First-year students in four universities

were given a survey on presenteeism and a questionnaire on mental health and eating behavior. The

study revealed students with emotional problems had higher levels of presenteeism compared to those

with other health problems and that student presenteeism was associated with health problems (allergy,

back or neck pain, menstruation, chronic headaches, depression, and anxiety, etc.). In another study,

Ferritto (2016) designed the Presenteeism and Perceived Academic Performance Scale to measure

student presenteeism by employing a series of student behavioral traits shown to be supportive of

academic performance, including paying attention and participation in class, class attendance, tardiness,

and note taking.

What prompted this study is lack of information on student absenteeism/presenteeism in Qatar and the

Arab region. In trying to decipher teachers’ perceptions of student absenteeism/presenteeism in

preparatory and secondary school levels in Qatar, this study aims to bridge this gap and contribute to

scholarly knowledge regarding absences and disengagement in pre-college education. Additionally,

whereas previous work has looked at students’ perspectives (Lee, 2016; Massingham & Herrington,

2006), teachers’ viewpoints on the topic have been neglected. The present study explores how the latter

perceive student absenteeism and presenteeism.



4.2 Research Questions

This study sought to examine the factors influencing preparatory (8th

and 9th

grades) and secondary

(11th

and 12th

grades) school teachers’ perceptions of absenteeism/presenteeism in Qatar. In so doing,

we studied the relationship of three constructs to teachers’ perceptions: (a) reviewing curriculum

content, (b) teaching load, and (c) student graduation rates. The purpose was to see if there are any

significant relationships between reported teachers’ perceptions and those three variables.

The overarching question this study addressed is: What factors shape teachers’ perceptions of student

absenteeism/presenteeism in Qatar? In particular specifically, answers were solicited to the following

questions:

– How do teachers perceive students’ absenteeism/presenteeism?

– What are the factors that influence teachers’ perceptions of student absenteeism/presenteeism?

– How are teachers’ perceptions associated with students’ absenteeism/presenteeism?

5. Research Method

5.1 Research Deign

This research used a survey research method based on an instrument designed by the Social and

Economic Survey Research Institute (SESRI), Qatar University. The instrument consists of 98

statements measuring different dimensions related to teachers’ perception of student

absenteeism/presenteeism and uses a five-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5

(Strongly Disagree).

5.2 Research Sample

This study involved teachers who teach in preparatory (middle) and secondary (high) school teachers at

both government-funded (Independent) and private (International) schools in Qatar.1200 teachers from

the selected schools were surveyed by SESRI fieldworkers using Computer-Assisted Personal

Interviewing. The data was collected by SESRI during the fall of 2015, with a response rate of 41%.

The study involved teachers (n=495) at preparatory (grades 8=31.1% and 9=20.6%) and secondary

(grades 11=27.5% and 12=20.8%) Independent and International schools (see Table 1). Overall, the age

of participants was distributed with an average of approximately 42 years. Of the 495 questionnaires that

were returned, 410 were complete and valid for multivariate analysis. Moreover, only 54 of the 495

teachers who responded are Qatari (10.9%) and 279 are female teachers (56.4%).



Table 1. Teachers’ Distribution by Nationality, Gender and Grade Level

Subgroup Frequency Percentage

Gender

Male 216 43.6%

Female 279 56.4%

Gradelevel

Grade 8 154 31.1%

Grade 9 102 20.6

Grade 11 136 27.5

Grade 12 103 20.8

Total 495 100%

5.3 Research Procedure

After data collection was completed, responses were entered manually into Blaise, a computer-assisted

interviewing system and survey processing tool. The dataset was then cleaned, coded and saved in

SPSS format. After weighting the final responses, the data were analysed using SPSS. The survey

involved a two-stage probability school sample of teachers. The sampling frame was based on a

comprehensive list of public and private schools provided by Qatar’s Ministry of Education.

The first stage sample was a proportionate sample of schools according to school size, school type (i.e.,

Independent, International), gender (male, female or co-ed) and grade (8th

, 9th

, 11th

, or 12th

). Schools

were randomly selected within each of these subgroups (type, gender, and grade) so that the school size

selected from each strata was relative to its incidence in the entire sampling frame. In stage two, one

class from each school grade was randomly selected and teachers of the classes selected were included

in the survey.

After getting relevant approvals from the Ministry of Education and Qatar University’s Internal Review

Board, official letters requesting permission to implement the study were sent to the schools. Teachers

were informed in advance about the purpose of the research project and were told participation in the

survey was voluntary and that their responses would be kept strictly confidential.

43 schools were sampled, with four refusing to participate, resulting in a 90.7% response rate at the

school level. Classrooms were randomly selected in 39 schools and teachers in selected classrooms

participated in the survey. However, we do not have information on the actual class sizes to calculate a

response rate at the classroom level. This design resulted in 495 teachers. Teachers’ response rate was

82.8% and the maximum sampling error was calculated at +/–2 percentage points, showing this study’s

instrument has internal reliability and construct validity.



5.4 Measures

Dependent variable

Teachers’ perception of student absenteeism presenteeism in Qatar. In the teacher questionnaire,

teachers were asked: ―To what extent is each of the following a problem in your classes?‖ and were

instructed to check all that were applicable: (a) Student tardiness is a problem in your classes; (b)

Student absenteeism is a problem in your class; (c) Student apathy is a problem in your classes; and (d)

Student unpreparedness to learn is a problem in year class.

In this study, absenteeism includes ―Student absenteeism is a problem in your class‖ and presenteeism

comprises ―Student tardiness is a problem in your classes‖, ―Student apathy is a problem in your

classes‖, and ―Student unpreparedness to learn is a problem in year class‖ as will be seen in the results

section below.

Independent variables

Teaching load:

Teachers were also asked: ―Currently, how many hours do you teach per week?‖ followed by the

following options: ―I don’t know‖ and ―refused‖.

Reviewing curriculum content:

Teachers were also asked: ―In a typical term (semester), how often do you review curriculum content

with (a) Fellow teachers in your school and (b) Subject coordinator in your school? Would you say

once a term (semester), twice a term (semester), three times a term (semester), more than three times a

term (semester) or never?‖

Graduation rate:

Teachers were asked: ―About what percentage of the students in your class do you expect to graduate?‖

Construct validity and reliability

Factor analysis was conducted as a data reduction technique and a test of validity of the 98 statements in

the questionnaire. Two statistical tests were performed to determine the suitability of factor analysis.

First, the Kaisers-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy score of 0.679 was well above the

recommended level of 0.50. Second, the Bartless test of sphericity was significant (Chi

Square=2689.22, P<0.00), indicating there were adequate inter-correlations between the items which

allow the use of factor analysis. Moreover, principal axis factoring was utilised as an extraction method

and oblique rotation was used as a rotation method.



6. Results

6.1 Factor Analysis

Factor analysis resulted in deleting eighty statements with Factor Loadings below 0.70. Accordingly,

eighteen valid five-point Likert type scale statements yielded seven factors with Eigen value greater than

1.0 and factor loadings higher than 0.7 (see Table 2). The seven-factor solution accounted for 74.816 per

cent of the total variance.

Table 2. Structure Matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q95. Student absenteeism is a problem in your classes .855 .008 .127 -.022 -.199 -.022 .039

Q96. Student apathy is a problem in your classes .842 -.014 .189 .144 -.167 .264 .063

Q94. Student tardiness is a problem in your classes .806 .065 .053 .006 -.148 -.039 .044

Q97. Student unprepared to learn is a problem in your classes .797 .043 .150 .140 -.132 .289 .049

Q44. Discuss using multimedia in class with fellow teachers .106 .903 -.144 .022 .203 .120 -.128

Q46. Discuss using multimedia in class with subject coordinator .037 .899 -.146 .021 .196 .051 -.093

Q45. Discuss using multimedia in class with school management -.032 .856 -.157 -.016 .076 -.001 -.054

Q55. This school management respects teachers .163 -.163 .877 -.003 -.064 -.103 -.012

Q52. Teachers are treated well in this school .125 -.102 .853 .024 -.046 -.123 .012

Q54. Teachers and administration work as a team in this school .070 -.171 .833 .054 -.068 -.144 .083

Q13. In a typical semester, how often do you consult or seek advice

on teaching matt .013 -.012 .024 .866 .014 -.052 .109

Q14. In a typical semester, how often do you consult or seek advice

on teaching matt .087 .022 .029 .854 -.035 -.088 .154

Q4. In a typical semester, how often do you review curriculum

content with Fellow teachers in your school -.147 .116 -.015 -.022 .894 -.075 -.068

Q6. In a typical semester, how often do you review curriculum

content with Subject coordinator in your school -.195 .196 -.118 -.001 .881 -.028 -.097

Q1. How satisfied are you with curriculum standards? -.161 -.097 .159 -.004 .062 -.870 .091

Q3. How satisfied are you with the curriculum content for the

subject you teach? -.035 -.026 .138 .153 .040 -.834 -.070

Q19. How often do you use teaching materials prepared by yourself .067 -.114 .045 .066 -.085 .020 .846

Q20. How often do you use teaching materials prepared by yourself

with your fellow teachers in your school .035 -.050 .014 .188 -.073 -.022 .835

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.



The range of the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the factors was between 0.714 and 0.829

and these factors were labelled according to their factor loadings as follows:

– Factor 1: Teachers’ perception of student absenteeism and presenteeism in Qatar

– Factor 2: Discussing how to use multimedia in class

– Factor 3: Treating teachers as professionals

– Factor 4: School teacher-teacher consultation

– Factor 5: Teachers’ satisfaction with the curriculum

– Factor 6: Preparing teaching materials

– Factor 7: Reviewing curriculum content

Based on factor analysis, it is clear that absenteeism/presenteeism were loaded under Factor 1 and will

be treated as one variable in the discussion of the results.

Testing the relative importance of the independent variables to the dependent variable

In regressing factor one (teachers’ perception of student absenteeism/presenteeism in Qatar) on the

other six factors, alongside two other questions, namely (1) teaching load (i.e., Currently, how many

hours do you teach per week?) and (2) expected graduation rate (i.e., About what percentage of the

students in your class do you expect to graduate?), only three are significant in explaining the variation

(teaching load: 0.000; expected graduation rate: 0.023; reviewing curriculum content: 0.045) and hence

in predicting teachers’ reported perception of student absenteeism/presenteeism in Qatar (Table 3).

These variables were used in path analysis.

Table 3. Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) -1.153 .207 -5.566 .000

Discuss How to Use Multimedia in Class .032 .047 .032 .679 .498

Treating teachers as professionals .074 .048 .074 1.551 .122

School Teacher–Teacher Consultation .055 .046 .055 1.208 .228

Reviewing Curriculum Content -.095 .047 -.095 -2.008 .045

Teachers' Job satisfaction .061 .046 .061 1.306 .192

Preparation of Teaching Materials .016 .046 .016 .343 .732

Expected Graduation Rate (Student Success) .005 .002 .105 2.280 .023

Teaching Load .048 .008 .312 6.307 .000

Note. a. Dependent Variable: Teachers’ perceptions of student absenteeism and presenteeism in Qatar.



Conceptual framework

Regressing the dependent variable (teachers’ perception of student absenteeism/presenteeism) on the

explanatory variables ―reviewing curriculum content‖, ―teaching load‖, and the ―expected graduation

rate‖ and using a stepwise multiple regression equation produced a highly significant F value. Path

analysis results showed that the teaching load has the highest direct effect. Reviewing curriculum

content and the expected graduation rate received the second and third highest direct effects,

respectively. Figure 1 shows the conceptual causal framework for the selected factors that interact to

influence teachers’ perception of student absenteeism/presenteeism in Qatar. The true direct effect is

shown between parentheses while the other numbers represent zero-order relations.

Figure 1. Predictors of Student Absenteeism and Presenteeism in Qatar: A Pathway Analysis

Chart

7. Discussion

This study draws on previous research to identify contextual (school-related) variables likely to

influence teachers’ perceptions regarding students’ absentee/presentee behavior. Looked at from the

perspectives of teachers, three variables were found to influence student absenteeism/presenteeism:

teaching load, reviewing the content of the curriculum, and the expected rate of student graduation. The

data analysis points to a positive causal relationship between teachers’ reported perceptions of student

absenteeism/presenteeism and their teaching load. Against our expectations, a path analysis revealed

the heavier the teachers’ workload is, the more likely they are to report student



absenteeism/presenteeim in school. This may be taken to mean that heavy or excessive teaching load

affects student attendance, interest and engagement. These findings are in line with previous studies

indicating that school-related factors influence the likelihood a student will skip or attend school

regularly. More specifically, instructional and classroom factors are strong predictors of student

attendance or absence (Marks, 2000). For instance, workload is shown to affect students’ school

engagement and their academic achievement (Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, 2014).

Evidence shows teachers’ workload (including instruction, assessment, materials development, tutoring,

advising, etc.) influences student attitudes towards learning. For example, Salley and Shaw (2015)

noted a heavy teaching load affects both teacher effectiveness and student learning outcomes. Thus,

students’ overall satisfaction with their course is significantly affected by how they perceive workload.

Demanding course loads can be a source of stress and may cause student burnout due to feelings of

exhaustion and stress and student burnout can in turn trigger high levels of absenteeism, low motivation

and engagement, and reduced productivity (Meier & Schmeck, 1985). However, evidence remains

inconsistent since other research shows workload has little to do with burnout (Jacobs & Dodd, 2003).

Our results could also be interpreted in the context of easy access to information and the availability of

alternative study materials, which may account for student absences (Massingham & Herrington, 2006).

Evidence shows technology and the Internet have multiple benefits for education where it is being

utilised as a convenient educational tool (Dogruer, Eyyam, & Menevis, 2011). Dissimilar to traditional

classes, the Internet is oftentimes employed by students as a convenient tool to complete homework

assignments (Cranmer, 2006). One could argue the Internet in particular makes it possible for some

students with extended absences to make up for their missed lectures.

The results also yielded a negative relationship between teachers’ perceptions of student

absenteeism/presenteeim and curriculum content reviewing. Could this imply that the more the

curriculum content is reviewed, the less likely teachers are to perceive student absentee/presentee

behaviour? Moreover, could this signify that reviewing the existing curriculum helps spark student

interest, motivation and engagement? This study’s findings reinforce results from past research and

emphasise the importance of curriculum revision in motivating students. The current study also shows

reviewing curriculum content helps to lessen boredom and reduce absences from school.

Curriculum development and renewal are important components of any educational reform. Research

unveils a recent surge of interest in the impact of curriculum reforms on educational outcomes (Allais,

2012; Souto-Otero, 2012). Common to many reform initiatives is a growing interest in the influence of

curriculum materials on classroom instruction (Moyer, Cai, Wang, & Nie, 2011). With the focus on

outcomes as a force driving curriculum design and development, student attendance and engagement

are viewed as critical for academic success (Chang & Romero, 2008). Documented research

consistently shows that curriculum review and revision aid in enhancing student engagement and

academic performance (Vander Jagt, 2013). When curriculum practices (teaching materials, instruction

and assessment) are revised, students tend to demonstrate successful learning and achievement.



These findings support the results of other studies by underscoring the role of the curriculum in

enhancing student attendance and triggering active involvement in class (Kousalya, Ravindranath, &

Vizayakumar, 2006). The key role of the curriculum and curriculum revision in engaging students in

learning is documented in a recent study by Mills, Krouse, Rossi-Schwartz, and Klein (2017) and

previous work by Windham (2005). Curriculum revision significantly influences student success and

remains an option that can help to curtail absenteeism among students (Kumar & Giri, 2012). For

Schalge and Soga (2008), dissatisfaction with the curriculum causes boredom and the structure of the

curriculum, coupled with good teacher-student communication concerning curriculum content, is a key

to curbing student absences. No doubt, an engaging pedagogy and an engaging curriculum instigate

active student engagement (Parsons & Taylor, 2011).

Against our expectations, our results reveal a positive relationship between teachers’ perception of

students’ absenteeism/presenteeism, and their expected graduation rate. Surprisingly, the data suggest

that the more teachers expect their students to graduate, the more likely they are to perceive student

absenteeism/presenteeism. Empirical evidence demonstrates that attendance does matter for students to

graduate on time and that chronic absenteeism puts them off-track to graduation (Allensworth, Gwynne,

Moore, & de la Torre, 2014). However, this contrasts with our results, which point to the opposite,

indicating absentee/presentee behaviours tend to be associated with graduation from school, as reported

by teachers. It needs to be noted that in the absence of attendance record data and data regarding

graduation rates in Qatar, it is difficult to clarify the likely effect of absence or attendance on student

success and achievement. It is unfortunate that access to such valuable information is not readily made

available to the public.

A drop in attendance rates is a predictor of course failure, thus setting students off-track to graduation.

Prior research shows consistent links between student attendance and being on the path toward eventual

graduation. Hence, attendance is a predictor of whether students are on-track to graduation from school

and absence from classes puts students at high risks of not graduating at all (Allensworth, Gwynne,

Moore, & de la Torre, 2014; Kieffer & Marinell, 2012). In Qatar, anecdotal reports increasingly point

to a prevalent absenteeism/presenteeism epidemic amongst the student population at all levels of

schooling. This situation has not improved despite multiple K=12 education reforms initiated over the

past two decades (Brewer et al., 2007). The public also has been largely unaware of the gravity of the

problem of absenteeism/presenteeism. Unfortunately, the difficulty of obtaining access to accurate and

reliable empirical data on the scope and extent of this phenomenon in Qatar makes it difficult to paint a

clear picture of the scale and scope of student absentee and presentee behaviour.

Whereas we acknowledge the missing link between students’ absences and their graduation prospects

in our study, previous documented research that shows associations between graduation and

absenteeism is lacking. A tentative explanation for our observation above, and the paradox it alludes to,

lies in contemplating the global expansion of private tutoring in recent years, with private lessons

increasingly perceived as an alternative to regular schooling (Bray & Kwo, 2014). Due to weak formal



education, private tutoring is turning into a supplement, and even a substitute—to mainstream public

schools (Ali, 2013), as evidenced by findings from Silova and Bray’s research (2006). In Qatar, the

prevalence of tutoring for secondary, and even primary-level students is vivid and has turned into a

convenient means of compensating for missed classes (Stepney, 2016).

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

Absenteeism and presenteeism flourish when students realise the risk of being penalised for their

behaviour is minimal or non-existent, eventually making absences and disengagement a gateway to

dropping out of school altogether. Since poor student attendance and presenteeism have far-reaching

consequences on students, schools, and society, the solution to this problem requires a

multidimensional approach involving the interaction and interplay between personal, scholastic and

socio-cultural factors. As key players in children’s education, school leaders, teachers, families, and the

community all have a share of responsibility in raising awareness of the importance of school

attendance and active engagement starting at the pre-school level.

In the interest of effective management of the problem, strategies for scaling down chronic

absence/absenteeism should start within school sites. Teachers and school officials need to understand

and monitor attendance and disengagement behaviour. Early identification of absenteeism/presenteeism

patterns will provide opportunities for early intervention to engage students and families before these

patterns become chronic. Similarly, a strict school attendance policy must be adopted and maintained

and an early-warning system implemented. Stressing that regular attendance is a priority, along with

continued recognition of and rewards to students with good and improved attendance records, is

important. Students and their families need to be aware of the positive impact of good attendance and

active participation in class. Motivation and positive engagement with the curriculum are critical

requisites for them to be on-track to graduation.

Presenteeism is a relatively new field and very little is known about this phenomenon within school

environments. Lack of scholarship on this topic makes it hard to identify relevant characteristics that

can easily be measured empirically. Therefore, any attempt that seeks to quantify presenteeism is

fraught with difficulty. Investigating different factors that are at play in order to establish the validity of

self-reports of class disengagement is useful to inform our understanding of the impact of presenteeism

on the individual learner, the school and society at large.

While this study focused on a few school-related variables affecting teachers’ perceptions of

absenteeism/presenteeism, it would benefit from also looking at other important influences. By

analysing personal variables (attitudes, beliefs, motivation, etc.) and contextual factors (demographic,

social, cultural, etc.), research stands to gain fresh insights into the nature and impact of absenteeism

and, more specifically, presenteeism. A limitation of this study lies in its use of a survey method

confined to a sample of teachers. Employing qualitative research methods that include the perspectives

of teachers, students and school officials would help to explore, in depth, the levels of concern of these



different groups, and the supports required to deal with student absences and disengagement.

Further research is required to expand participant recruitment to comprise other K-12 grade levels,

including primary and preparatory levels of schooling. Expanding the study would allow comparisons

within and across different student groups and thus provide rich and robust data; it would also help to

identify the grades at which absentee/presentee behaviour is more or less visible. We recognise

problematic behaviours may alter with age and will vary from one school to another depending on

different contextual factors. However, understanding the factors that shape absentee/presentee

behaviours can be very useful in gaining deeper insights regarding this problematic behaviour and ways

of support planning.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Social and Economic Survey Research Institute, Qatar University. The

authors would like to thank all the students and teachers who took part in the 2015 Qatar Education

Study. The authors would also like to thank SESRI’s Research, Survey Operations, Survey

Programming and Development, and Information Technology Projects teams for giving so generously

of their time at various stages of the data collection and data entry.

References

Abduljawad, H. (2015). Challenges in cultivating knowledge in university‐industry‐government

partnerships—Qatar as a case study. The Muslim World, 105(1), 58-77.

https://doi.org/10.1111/muwo.12080

Alfadala, A. (2015). K-12 reform in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: Challenges and

policy recommendations. Doha: World Innovation Summit for Education (WISE). Retrieved June

5, 2018, from

http://www.wise-qatar.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/wise-research-3-wise-11_17.pdf

Ali, Y. A. (2013). Private tutoring in Jordan: Underpinning factors and impacts. International Journal

of Humanities and Social Science, 3(13), 109-114.

Al-Kuwārī, A. K. (2012). The visions and strategies of the GCC countries from the perspective of

reforms: The case of Qatar. Contemporary Arab Affairs, 5(1), 86-106.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17550912.2011.647417

Allais, S. (2012). Claims vs practicalities: Lessons about using learning outcomes. Journal of

Education and Work, 25(3), 331-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.687570

Allensworth, E. M., Gwynne, J. A., Moore, P., & de la Torre, M. (2014). Looking forward to high

school and college: Middle grade indicators of readiness in Chicago Public Schools. In Research

report. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved

February 16, 2019, from

https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Middle%20Grades%20Report.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1111/muwo.12080

https://doi.org/10.1080/17550912.2011.647417

https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.687570



Al-Maadheed, F. (2017). Qatar: Past, present and prospects for education. In S. Kirdar (Ed.), Education

in the Arab World (pp. 179-196). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474271035.ch-010

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its

relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 651-670.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.007

Arulampalam, W., Naylor, R. A., & Smith, J. (2012). Am I missing something? The effects of absence

from class on student performance. Economics of Education Review, 31, 363-375.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.12.002

Badri, M., & Khaili, M. A. (2014). Migration of P-12 education from its current state to one of high

quality: The aspirations of Abu Dhabi. Policy Futures in Education, 12(2), 200-220.

https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.2.200

Balfantz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2012). Chronic absenteeism: Summarizing what we know from nationally

available data (pp. 1-46). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Centre for the Social

Organisation of Schools. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from

http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FINALChronicAbsenteeismReport_

May16.pdf

Bray, M., & Kwo, O. (2014). Regulating private tutoring for public good. Policy options for

supplementary education in Asia. Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre and

UNESCO. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from

http://cerc.edu.hku.hk/wp-content/uploads/Mono-10.pdf

Brewer, D. J., Augustine, C. H., Zellman, G. L., Ryan, G. W., Goldman, C. A., & Ryan, G. (2007).

Education for a New Era: Design and implementation of k-12 education reform in Qatar. Santa

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/MG548

Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, Jr. J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high

school dropouts. In A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research

Associates for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from

http://www.sia-us.com/uploads/TheSilentEpidemic3-06Final.pdf

Chang, H. N., & Romero, M. (2008). Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of

addressing chronic absence in the early grades. Columbia: Columbia University Academic

Commons.

Chen, J., & Lin, T. F. (2008). Class attendance and exam performance: A randomized experiment.

Journal of Economic Education, 39(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.39.3.213-227

Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., & Whiteleather, A. (2003). To attend or not to attend: Is that a good question?

Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30, 220-224.

Cranmer, S. (2006). Children and young people’s uses of the Internet for homework. Learning, Media

and Technology, 31(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880600893358

https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474271035.ch-010

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.007

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.12.002

https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.2.200

https://doi.org/10.7249/MG548

https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.39.3.213-227

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880600893358



Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic

review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of

Educational Research, 80(2), 272-295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310362998

Dogruer, N., Eyyam, R., & Menevis, I. (2011). The use of the internet for educational purposes.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 606-611.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.115

Ferritto, V. R. (2016). Maritime education factors and presenteeism: A comparative quantitative study.

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 15(2), 353-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0098-9

Gerich, J. (2016). Determinants of presenteeism prevalence and propensity: Two sides of the same coin?

Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, 71(4), 189-198.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2015.1011268

Gottfried, M. A. (2010). Evaluating the relationship between student attendance and achievement in

urban elementary and middle schools: An instrumental variables approach. American Educational

Research Journal, 47(2), 434-465. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209350494

Hartnett, S. (2007). Does peer group identity influence absenteeism in high school students? The High

School Journal, 91(2), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2008.0000

Hocking, C. (2008). The contributing factors to student absenteeism/truancy and the effectiveness of

social services and interventions. Social Work Theses, 18. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from

https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/an

dhttpsredir=1andarticle=1017andcontext=socialwrk_students

Hysenbegasi, A., Hass, S. L., & Rowland, C. R. (2005). The impact of depression on the academic

productivity of University students. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 8(3),

145-151.

Jacobs, S. R., & Dodd, D. (2003). Student burnout as a function of personality, social support, and

workload. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 291-303.

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0028

Jáuregui, I., Mullol, J., Dávila, I., Ferrer, M., Bartra, J., Del Cuvillo, A., & Valero, A. (2009). Allergic

rhinitis and school performance. Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology,

19(1), 32-39.

Johns, G. (2009). Absenteeism or presenteeism? Attendance dynamics and employee well‐being. In S.

Cartwright, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organisational Well-Being (pp.

7-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211913.003.0002

Kearney, C. A., & Bensaheb, A. (2006). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior: A review and

suggestions for school‐based health professionals. Journal of school Health, 76(1), 3-7.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00060.x

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310362998

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.115

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0098-9

https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2015.1011268

https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209350494

https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2008.0000

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0028

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211913.003.0002

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00060.x



Kieffer, M. J., & Marinell, W. H. (2012). Navigating the middle grades: Evidence from New York City.

In The Research Alliance for New York City Schools, Working Paper. New York University

Steinhardt. Retrieved January 27, 2018, from

https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/sg158/PDFs/navigating_middle_grades_2012/

NavigatingTheMiddleGrades.pdf

Kousalya, P., Ravindranath, V., & Vizayakumar, K. (2006). Student absenteeism in engineering colleges:

Evaluation of alternatives using AHP. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences,

Article 58232, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1155/JAMDS/2006/58232

Kumar, S. P., & Giri, V. N. (2012). Teachers’ multiple commitment in higher learning institutions.

International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(8), 156-165.

Law, D. W. (2007). Exhaustion in university students and the effect of coursework involvement.

Journal of American College Health, 55(4), 239-245. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.55.4.239-245

Lee, S. (2016). What motivates and engages students in the education process—An examination of

Qatari students’ mind set and attitudes toward going to school, learning, and future aspirations.

Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 220-235. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n3p220

Macfarlane, B. (2012). Be here now, or else: Lamentable effects of student ―presenteeism‖. Times

Higher Education.

Macfarlane, B. (2015). Student performativity in higher education: Converting learning as a private

space into a public performance. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(2), 338-350.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.956697

Macfarlane, B. (2016). The performative turn in the assessment of student learning: A rights

perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(7), 839-853.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1183623

Macfarlane, B. (2017). Freedom to learn: The threat to student academic freedom and why it needs to

be reclaimed. Abingdon, New York: Routledge/Society for Research into Higher Education.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315529455

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle

and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153-184.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153

Massingham, P., & Herrington, T. (2006). Does attendance matter? An examination of student attitudes,

participation, performance and attendance. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice,

3(2), 82-103.

Matsushita, M., Adachi, H., Arakida, M., Namura, I., Takahashi, Y., Miyata, M., & Mikami, A. (2011).

Presenteeism in college students: Reliability and validity of the presenteeism scale for students.

Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 439-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9763-9

Meier, S. T., & Schmeck, R. R. (1985). The burned-out college student: A descriptive profile. Journal

of College Student Personnel, 26(1), 63-69.

https://doi.org/10.1155/JAMDS/2006/58232

https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.55.4.239-245

https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n3p220

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.956697

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1183623

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315529455

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9763-9



Mikami, A., Matsushita, M., Adachi, H., Suganuma, N., Koyama, A., Ichimi, N., & Sugita, Y. (2013).

Sense of coherence, health problems, and presenteeism in Japanese university students. Asian

Journal of Psychiatry, 6(5), 369-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2013.03.008

Mills, S., Krouse, A. M., Rossi-Schwartz, R., & Klein, J. M. (2017). Curriculum revision: Student

stress and lessons learned. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(6), 337-342.

https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20170518-04

Moyer, J. C., Cai, J., Wang, N., & Nie, B. (2011). Impact of curriculum reform: Evidence of change in

classroom practice in the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2),

87-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.06.004

Nasser, R. (2017). Qatar’s educational reform past and future: Challenges in teacher development. Open

Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2016.1266693

Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1),

1-32.

Picklo, D., & Christenson, S. (2005). Alternatives to retention and social promotion: The availability of

instructional options. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 258-268.

https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260050101

Powell, J. J. (2012). Small state, large world, global university: Comparing ascendant national

universities in Luxemburg and Qatar. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 15(1), 100-113.

Qatar General Secretariat for Development Planning (QGSDP). (2011). Qatar National Development

Strategy 2011-2016. Retrieved October 28, 2019, from

http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf

Rubin, A. (2012). Higher education reform in the Arab world: The model of Qatar. Middle East

Institute. Retrieved May 8, 2019, from

https://www.mei.edu/content/higher-education-reform-arab-world-model-qatar

Salley, W., & Shaw, M. (2015). Employment status, teaching load, and student performance in online

community college courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(2), 2.

Salmela‐Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of

demands-resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 137-151.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12018

Schalge, S. L., & Soga, K. (2008). ―Then I stop coming to school‖: Understanding absenteeism in an

adult English as a second language program. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2(3),

151-161.

Schmulian, A., & Coetzee, S. (2011). Class absenteeism: Reasons for non-attendance and the effect on

academic performance. Accounting Research Journal, 24(2), 178-194.

https://doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163718

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2013.03.008

https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20170518-04

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.06.004

https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2016.1266693

https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260050101

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12018

https://doi.org/10.1108/10309611111163718



Silova, I., & Bray, M. (2006). The hidden marketplace: Private tutoring in former socialist countries. In

L. Silova, V. Budiene, & M. Bray (Eds.), Education in a hidden marketplace: Mmonitoring of

private tutoring (pp. 71-98). New York: Open Society Institute.

Souto-Otero, M. (2012). Learning outcomes: Good, irrelevant, ban or none of the above? Journal of

Education and Work, 25(3), 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.689648

Stepney, E. (2016). Shadow education: Private tutoring and education reform. The Social and

Economic Survey Research Institute (SESRI), Policy Brief No. 7. Retrieved March 10, 2018, from

http://www.qu.edu.qa/global/sesri/Shadow-Brief-Eng-Final.pdf

VanderJagt, D. D. (2013). Student thoughts and perceptions on curriculum reform (Unpublished PhD

Thesis). Western Michigan University.

Windham, C. (2005). The student’s perspective. In D. G. Oblinger, & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating

the Net generation (pp. 1-16). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved November 21, 2018,

from https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101e.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.689648

determinants of student absenteeism/presenteeism in qatar

Documents